Transcript MPD 575 Design for Testability

MPD 575
Design for Geometric Compatibility
Jonathan Weaver
Cohort 8 Jack Wildman
1
DFGC Development History
• This material was prepared by Cohort 8
students in the Fall of 2007:
– Jack Wildman
2
Design for Geometric Compatibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Needs for Geometric Compatibility
Concerns with Geometric Compatibility
Customer Driven Product Direction
Digital Vehicle Definition
Product Structure
Manufacturing Structure
Plant Structure
Geometric Requirements
Reporting Results
3
Need for Geometric Compatibility
• Earlier verification to new customer
requirements
• High Vehicle Configuration Combination
complexities
• Digital Validation is Cheaper than Physical
Validation
• High Cost of Tooling Rework
• Ensures Proper Fit of Parts Prior to Committing
Financial Resources
• Cad is the only representation of what will be
manufactured prior to prototypes
4
Need for Geometric Compatibility (Cont.)
• Virtual Validation can be Applied in all Aspects of
System Engineering
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Manufacturing Process
CAE analysis
Tooling
Stamping
Serviceability
Craftsmanship
Packaging
• Customer expectations can be Visualized Early in the
System Engineering Process
• Better Design from Early No Build Conditions
– More Time to Correct No Build Conditions
5
Concerns with Geometric Compatibility
• Product Direction Letter (PDL) is not 100%
defined early in Program
• Early Bill of Materials (BOM) is not stable
• Requires discipline to manage CAD BOM
early in process
• Geometric verification is not a high priority
early on
• Design Contexts are work in progress early in
the vehicle development cycle
• This is normal product development evolution
6
Digital Pre Assembly (DPA)
Ford GPDS Process (2007)
Theme
Development
Package
Development
Service
Plant and
Facilities
Digital
Product & Process
Integration
Product
Engineering
Digitally Aligned
•Bill of Material
•Bill of Process
•CAx Product Structure
Reports
Product / Process
Simulation
Functional
Simulation
Virtual Vehicle
Realization
Supplier
Integration
GPDS = Global Product Development System
7
Customer Driven Product Direction
• Benefits of Quality Customer Direction
– Shared vision by all involved activities
– Proper reflection in budgets and resource plans to
execute the direction
– Translation errors minimized
– Order guides and broadcast (build) sheets are
accurate
– Financial and supporting calculations have integrity
– Parts lists and bills of material (BOM) can be
accurate
• These benefits out way the concerns of
managing CAD as the actual BOM early in a
program
8
Poor PDL Costs
A PDL...
Cost to the Company
That does not reflect Marketing intent prevents the
customer from having the intended choices.
Lost customers and lower revenue – two of the
most expensive losses.
That issues confusing direction prevents
coordinated responses by related activities as they
each add their own interpretations.
Lost time of wasted effort and resources spent on
urgent recovery.
That does not reflect Engineering capability or
intent can lead to releases and builds that do not
reflect intended design.
Misbuilds must be rebuilt, wrong parts may be fitted
affecting performance of function and a misbuild
can necessitate a recall campaign.
That does not reflect the true agreement or intent of
the company and its management leads to later
revisions to direction.
All the work on the earlier direction is lost and the
time to prove out and optimize the later design is
reduced.
That is late, or action that is decided but not
properly recorded, will not be reflected in
department budgets or resource plans.
The constant battle for correct resources.
That has inaccurate coding of options can lead to
an inaccurate BOM.
Bills of Materials (BOM) are wrong, parts
associations with uses will be wrong, engineering
intent may not be reflected in BOM releases and
ultimately complete misbuilds can incur (including
Safety or Certification Items) causing possible recall
actions.
9
Poor PDL Ramifications
• Late announcement of direction
– If changes in direction are not made and announced in time to execute
the changes, the final product may be very late to market, or not have
the development or prove out time desired, risking quality.
• Improper specification of Marketing features/options
– One category of Program Direction Letter is the Features and Options
Summary, which specifies the arrangement of Standard and Optional
features and series to be offered for a given product line. If that
specification does not reflect the summary needs of both the
Marketing communities and the Engineering groups that must design
and develop a product.
• Unclear Program direction
– When direction is announced via a PDL, the direction must be
sufficiently specific for the affected activities to take the expected
actions. The level of detail of direction expands as a program
progresses down the Product Development process. Later in a
program, when actual parts are to be designed and prepared for
production, a much more detailed work breakdown structure is
required.
10
Digital Vehicle Definition
• Configured CAD BOM Alignment
• Variants / Effectivity = Usage
• 100 % 3D Geometry Defined in Context
– Product
– Manufacturing
– Plant
•
•
•
•
•
Full Motion (Kinematics / Dynamic)
Change Management of BOM
Market Studies
Collaboration Contexts
Ford PDM
– TeamCenter Engineering (TCe)
11
Vehicle Configuration Boundaries
• Product Development Process
– Digital Verification
Mission
Statement
Product
Planning
Concept
Development
System
Design
CAD development
crosses all phases
Detail
Design
Digital
Validation
Testing/
Refinement
Production
Ramp up
Product
Launch
Ulrich and Eppinger, 1995
12
Configured CAD BOM
• Cad Product structure is aligned to the
Engineering BOM
– Early in the Product Development Process prior to
ordering parts these are the same BOM
• The BOM consists of Usages
– A usage is all of the attributes that describes how a
part is going to be used in product
– We will concentrate on Variants (Why) and Effectivity
(When) a part is valid in a BOM
• The combination of effectivity and variants is
called configuration
13
Configured CAD BOM
Ford (TCe)
Red Items System
Breakdown
Pink Items Part
Instances
Options stored
at Program
Level
14
Configured CAD BOM
Ford (TCe)
Quantity
required for
Program
Green “V” =
Variant
Condition
Effectivity on
Part Instances
15
Configured CAD BOM (Variants)
• The set of variants that create a product
configuration that is manufactured (buildable
combination) is called a variant filter
• A variant filter is what is used to filter the product
structure to different buildable combinations
• Variants/options are:
– Marketing
– Engineering
– Procurement
16
Configured CAD BOM (Variants)
Ford (TCe)
Variant Filter
Selected
Option Values
for Product
17
Configured CAD BOM (Effectivity)
• Each revision of a part will use effectivity to
track what revision is valid for a specific
milestone (point in time)
• A effectivity filter is what is used to filter the
product structure to see the coordinated
revisions of the BOM
• When both variant and effectivity filters are
applied simultaneously will be a set of parts
that are going to be assembled at the plant
18
Configured CAD BOM (Effectivity)
• Effectivity is not simple as using the current date
to manage the milestones
• Actual calendar dates are mapped to a sequential
hierarchical effectivity number
• The mapping is done to solve the case where in
automotive the prototype phase of next model
year may overlap with current production model
year as to when part are due
• We will make a linear timeline stacking the model
years end to end
19
Each Number Increment within the Hierarchy gives
a New Block of Numbers to Manage the BOM
4
567
Tryout Build Phase
Coordination Phase
1/4, 1/2, 3/4 Model years
Model Year
3
Production/Prototype Phase
1 2
20
Model Year Management for Perpetual Timeline
ONE ACTUAL TIMELINE
PROTO 2003 PROD
REALITY TIMELINES OVERLAP
PROTO 2003.5 PROD
PROTO 2004 PROD
TIMELINES WILL BE STACKED END TO END
PROTO 2003 PROD
PROTO 2003.5 PROD
PROTO 2004 PROD
9 9 9 9 999 EP
4 9 9 9 999 Filter O4
4 0 2 1 100 DB 3
P4.0
Filter 03.5
WADB 2
DB 2
WBDB 2
4 0 2 0 000 04
4 0 1 0 000
3 5 9 9 999
3 5 2 1 110
3 5 2 1 100
3 5 2 1 010
3 5 2 0 000 03.5
3 5 1 0 000 P3.5
3 0 2 1 100 DB 1
3 0 2 0 000 03
3 0 1 0 000 P3
3 0 0 0 000 PS
MILESTONES CAN BE ADDED WHERE COORDINATION IS REQUIRED
21
Configured CAD BOM (Effectivity)
Ford (TCe)
Effectivity Rule
Names
(U502 Job 1 Buck)
Effectivity Rule
Hierarchy
22
100 % 3D Geometry Defined in Context
• Product Structure needs to be partitioned into
Systems and Sub-Systems
– Ford Uses Corporate Product System
Classification (CPSC) codes
• All Geometry Requires a Bounding
Box/Space Map to Define the Spatial
Location of the Part in Context
• PDM and CAD Tools will use these Spatial
Relationships for Design in Context Queries
23
Configured CAD BOM
Ford (TCe)
Configuration
Rule Applied
Embedded Viewer
(Design in Context)
(Clash Management)
24
Full Motion (Kinematics / Dynamic)
• Motion of any parts simulated in the
context of the vehicle program
• Motion is can be stopped in worse case
conditions to design proper clearances
• Motion is used by manufacturing to see
if parts can loaded
• Motion of tools and access for part
attachment are also required for proper
design in context
25
Vehicle Geometric Requirements
• Requirements come from all activities
– Design
– Engineering
– Manufacturing
– Stamping
• Requirements are Part to Part, System to
System or Part to System
• All requirements are derived over time
26
Vehicle Geometric Requirements
(Ford Example)
System
System
Check
Value
Type of
Check
27
Vehicle Geometric Requirements
(Ford Example)
• Who is responsible for the interface
28
Requirements Cascade (Part)
Body Engineering: Hood Sub-system
DFMEA: Hood Assy
Item/Function: Jury evaluation, Fail. Mode: Squeak & Rattle, Causal Mech: Insufficient torsional stiffness
What
Functional requirement: Hood Torsional Stiffness (HD-0018)
DVM: Torsional Stiffness – CAE (DVM-0027-18)
Torsional Stiffness – Bench (DVM-0024-HD)
Torsional Stiffness – Vehicle (DVM-0025-HD)
How’s
Design HD-010205A-0001
Rules:
DR’s collected in Excel , stored
in eRoom, assessed in
CAD/manually, compliance
tracked in Excel
Ford Requirements collected
in SDS, stored in SetK,
assessed using DVM,
compliance tracked in
eFDVS, DVP&R
All steel inner panel main beams (periphery) must be
25mm minimum depth for the full length of the beams
Parameter: Hood Beam Depth = 25mm min
Parameters collected in
Excel, stored in eRoom/TMT,
assessed in CAD, compliance
tracked in CAD/TMT
Template-based
parameter set
Template Part
29
Requirements Cascade (Vehicle)
Body Engineering: Hood Sub-system
DFMEA: Hood Assy
Item/Function: Jury evaluation, Fail. Mode: Squeak & Rattle, Causal Mech: Hood components rubbing
(ref. HD-0004)
What
Functional requirement: Hood System Cycle Durability (HD-0018)
DVM: Hood System Key Life Durability (DVM-0033-HD)
How
Design HD-010205A-0033
Rules:
Hood inner panel will maintain 20mm clearance to
engine bay components
Parameter: Hood Inner Clearance = 20 mm min
Geometric Checks:
Ford Geometric checks
collected in Excel, stored in
VVT, assessed in VIS/CAD
compliance tracked in VVT
Hood outer to x > 20mm
Hood outer to y > 20 mm
Compliant
30
Requirements Stored in TCe
Requirements
Stored in program
context at System
level in Excel
31
Change Management
• The Product Lifecycle Manager (PLM)
• Route Geometric Changes to Appropriate set
of Approvers for Digital Verification
• Track all changes to the Product Structure
–
–
–
–
–
Positional
Variant
Effectivity
Quantity
Part Number Supersedures
• Reports on health of program generated from
changes tracked against usages
32
Change Management
Ford (TCe Workflow)
Change Manages
(BOM Changes)
(Effectivity)
(Sign Offs)
33
Manufacturing Structure
• Tooling moved to product location for
combined manufacturing and product
context
• This context can be launched to
appropriate CAD system real time
updates to fulfill geometric/functional
requirements
34
Manufacturing Structure
Ford (TCe)
Manufacturing
Process in Design
Position
35
Plant Structure
• Tooling and product moved to plant for
production simulation
• Ergonomics studies can also be
performed
• Can drive or fly through plant to see if
any major space shortages are
apparent
36
Plant Structure
Ford (TCe)
Plant Layout
Stations moved to
Plant Context
37
Reports
• The PLM system (TCe) will be used to
store the product structure and design
context with geometric change
management authority verification signoff
• The geometric non-compliance issues
will be documented on each usage in
the product structure
38
Reports (cont.)
• The report will combine all non compliant
issues that cross systems that can not be
solves by a single system team
• The report can be parsed by system issues or
individual usage issues
• The report will be scrutinized more often as
major milestones are being approached
– Ford uses Global Product Development Process
(GPDS) to define the Milestones.
39
Correct Report to Correct Person
Desired PD Process
Process
Design Done
BAD Churn
Planned Churn
Define
Program
Deliverables
•Assumptions
•PDL
•BOM
Metrics
Create
Product
•BOM
•Clay
•Geometry
•CAE
•Tools
Verify
Product
•MFG Feasibility
•DPA Compatibility
•CAE validation
•100% CAD/BOM
•Attribute Validation
Validate
Product
•Prototype Builds
•Physical Testing
In Process Confidence True Measure of Exit Criteria Process Capability/Efficiency
•CAD Completion
•BOM Completion
•Digital Evaluation
•Purpose ->
Consumer Types
•Who can Fix Issue
•Who Depend on the Data
Progress to Plan
•Functional Managers
•Engineers
•Supervisors
•BLE
•BOM Verification
•Digital Verification
•Styling Status
•PDPD Compliance
•Churn Metrics
•Release Metrics
•Build Performance
•Total Cost
How done am I
•Managers + -> VP
•Program Management
•Decision Makers
•Directors/VPs
•Process Engineers
40
Heuristics
• Why wait till the end to find issues,
verify along the design process
• Enter once and use many
• Share info early and often
• CAD is your friend
• Prototypes are very efficient in finding
issues after the money has been spent
41
Heuristics
• Map your digital strategy and your
design approach with respect to design
requirements
• The percent of issues found after digital
validation is proportional to the percent
of errors found during physical
validation
42
References
• Siemens. [Online] Available
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.co
m/en_us/products/teamcenter/solutions
_by_product/index.shtml, December 5,
2007.
• Ford Motor Company. [Intranet]
http://www.methods.ford.com,
December 5, 2007
43
References
• Patel, Naresh. “DPA Guidelines for
Requirements”, 2006.
• Seippel, Steve. “Requirements Management”,
2007.
44